Posted
by
Soulskill
on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @10:07PM
from the neverending-console-generation dept.

An anonymous reader writes "As the next generation of consoles looms, we've seen a growing trend towards low price, compact alternatives such as the Ouya and GameStick, many of which run on the Android mobile platform. But this article on the trend raises a very good point: through the use of cloud computing and game streaming technology, it's entirely possible these machines will be able to keep pace with the powerhouse technology inside the Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox 720, and perhaps even overtake them. After all, if these little boxes can simply stream from powerful servers, how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up?"

The summary doesn't make it clear but what the article is talking about is streaming from your own more powerful PC via Wi-Fi, which apparently one of the products has the ability to do so.

Now I don't really buy into that as coinciding with what people want but at least the concept is plausible no matter where you are situated or your Internet situation. (Consoles usually stay at home as well).

Don't forget bandwidth caps on wired Internet "services", such as that sold to you by the good people at AT&T. The little old lady next door already got hit with huge overages because she likes to watch netflix, I can imagine how bad the overages would be if I was playing a high resolution game for similar amounts each month. And I also don't believe that a "cloud based system" will ever be able to generate as good of quality of game video and then deliver it with as low of latency as a system co-located with the user.

Rural areas. Dialup and satellite internet suck in this application. 3G? Unless one has a large data cap or uses their console infrequently.

A "preloaded USB stick" service would be nice from an internet-only store, say if they could do an 8GB stick for $5 and you have the game within a week. You'd still need the dialup connection to decrypt the USB stick files and install to your console, but if you're on dialup you're not going to be playing multiplayer over Internet, so you can safely tell your console not to attempt to update whenever a patch is pushed.

They don't want you to know this; but the various 'cloud gaming' startups are actually part of an attempt to uncover enough precogs to set up a practical precrime unit.

With latency what it is, only limited precognition allows the player to perform as well as they would locally. With online leaderboards, it becomes a relatively simple matter to screen for players who play more effectively than the limitations of the game would ordinarily allow.

Most people don't have fast enough internet to stream high quality without lag and a lot of people have data caps. If you can't even stream a Netflix movie without it buffering all the time or using up your data how are you supposed to game for hours on end?

We've talked about this a thousand times. After your normal input lag gets sent to a server, the video gets rendered and sent back, your latency is so bad that twitchy games are unplayable. I'm sure it would work fine for slow-paced games, but then... what do you need the server for?

The sad thing about latency is the networking bunch may do their jobs fairly well but the input/output hardware and software people often don't or can't.

So each router hop on the internet might only take 1ms or less whereas a mouse button click or keyboard key press might take 16 milliseconds (debouncing etc) and a crap TV might take another 16-50 milliseconds or even more.

Of course if you're unlucky to be an ocean or two away from the servers your ping goes up by 200 milliseconds or more. But if you're not, don't be surprised how little latency might be added by the network and server.

For instance my ping to www.google.com is coming back within 5 milliseconds.

But if the game server and client bunch leave Nagling on that often adds another semi-random 200+ milliseconds. I personally think Nagling belongs in the past and no longer should be enabled by default - causes more problems than it solves. It is a kludge that does something at the network layer that should more properly be done at the application layer.

You need to add data transmission time to the network latency. You need to wait for an entire screen to be transferred before it can be displayed. If it's compressed, there's latency in the compression too. That's why VOIP codecs sacrifice quality for latency, waiting for 1152 samples before encoding an MP3 frame takes too long.

Trouble is, unless you've got a decent internet connection(preferrably uncapped, if you plan on doing much 'cloud' gaming), the effective latency is a combination of your basic ping time and the time to transfer whatever data are needed to paint the next frame of video. Your keystrokes going out aren't likely to be all that much bigger than an ICMP packet; but unless you can pull a good 10Mb/s down or better you'll be choosing between pixel soup and slideshow mode...

You can try that yourself and see the ping differences between hops, there will be some anomalies as in mine due to asymmetric routing (packets taking a different path back). Your first hop might be high latency if you are using a 56k or ADSL modem, but the other hops might only have a diff of a few milliseconds.

I remember in the beginning of the 90's measuring pings in seconds. 3 years ago I had ~400ms in Vancouver. 2 years ago ~220ms in a small town in Mexico. I could hardly believe your claim of 5ms, but i'm getting a pleasant 25ms which is pretty good for Canada.

With lags cut down, faster rendering, 17mbs instead of 56k, I actually find surfing the web for information more tedious today:( So much high bandwidth garbage out there... though arguably better than Time Cube coloured geocities pages.

The closest IP to your endpoint which you listed is 211.25.27.81 Which is located in Australia (South Brisbane specifically) according to whois records.I just ran a traceroute from the Primus Telecom looking glass server in Brisbane, and you're topping 140ms. A trace from Telstra's server in Melbourne shows 134ms right now.

I'm not familiar with all the companies involved who show up in your specific trace path, but I have a suspicion your ISP has a direct peering circuit with Google reserved just for Google

I'm not sure the anonymous reader understands how computers work. You can't just stream CPU power. Plus, one of the main reasons for using a console is that it "just works", and having to have it connected to the internet whenever you play would be a huge pain.

Technically if you had enough CPU power and bandwidth to get a near real time video feed. So where you send you often 1 byte command and then you get your updated screen withing a human response level of time 1/120 of a second. Then you can stream CPU power. As all the hard work of game physics, graphics rendering... Can be done else were.

We do not have such bandwidth (affordable) yet for this, but it could happen.

The console-killer always has been the good old PC. A reasonably specced-out PC with a mid-range graphics card is far, far better than any console. But nobody listens to me.

Well yes and no.

You may not be old enough to remember but back before the Playstation and Xbox PC-pretenders turned up consoles were about casual, accessible games like Mario Kart. PC's were about in depth games, shooters like Doom and adventure games like Star Control 2. Then the PS/XB pretenders came a long and pretended they could be "hardcore" gaming machines. This was until Nintendo released the Wii and proved that consoles were about casual, accessible games like Mario Kart and made money hand over fist whilst it took the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 half a decade to achieve profitability (the PS3 still hasn't recouped it's investment yet).

Now mobile is muscling in on the casual game and this is where the "traditional" console is doomed. Casual audiences will be attracted to the cheapness, ease of use and multiplayer capabilities of the tablet-consoles (Tabsoles, Conslets?) and "hardcore" games will come home, back to the PC.

Seriously? Street Fighter? Final Fantasy? Romance of the Three Kingdoms? No More Heroes? The World Ends with You? *Dragon Quest*?

None of these games have "depth?" I think what you mean is "ridiculously thick manual and awful UI."

Anything that can plug into a display and spit sound out of it somehow can be full of casual or "teh hardcorez" gaming anyway. The PC, for example, is nothing but a final resting place for casual games and shovel ware and Pokemon is a ridiculously deeper game than it lets on.

Street fighter is an arcade game, you might be too young to remember but street fighter debued in the arcade (the arcade is where you played casual games before the home console became popular, you're probably too young to remember this too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fighter [wikipedia.org] First released in the arcade in 1987.

Okay so I made a slip up but you didn't negate my point. Anything that has a screen, takes user input and maybe plays sound can have deep games or really shallow ones. Your insistance that PC gaming must be the one true path for hardcore is ridiculous.

This is how it is in the console world. It was dog eat dog. Nintendo ate Atari and Sega, Sony tried to eat nintendo... The first company to release a decent tablet/console hybrid will eat the others (smart monies on Nintendo, they seem to understand the market).

The console market does not abide competition. Having three players is the largest it's ever been and right now, two of those three players will have trouble staying in the game.

But that's not how it MUST be. In other markets, you can easily have multiple competitors and a reasonably healthy market. Not only can it happen, but it HAS happened in regionalized examples. In America, the Genesis made a lot of money for Sega while the Supe

Consoles are about casual, accessable games, this is the core of the console market.

There are so many deficencies with console hardware it's not funny. This is why there still isn't a successful strategy game on consoles. To make truely in depth games (I refuse to call them "hardcore") you need a platform that is extensible, not a limited platform.

Played Advance Wars? It may not be everyones favorite game, but it's one of the best turn based strategy games I've played. Strategy RPGs like Tactics Ogre or Fire Emblem work very well on consoles too.

What is a "hardcore gaming console"? The PS3 or 360? They are commodity hardware, there is nothing "hardcore" about them. My aging PC is "harder core" than them, most PCs you can buy cheap at Fry's are "harder core" these days.

What the hell do you mean by "hardcore" anyway? That is a term that long since lost pretty much all of its meaning.

Now mobile is muscling in on the casual game and this is where the "traditional" console is doomed. Casual audiences will be attracted to the cheapness, ease of use and multiplayer capabilities of the tablet-consoles (Tabsoles, Conslets?) and "hardcore" games will come home, back to the PC.

I've got a PC (which, thanks to my job is kept pretty up to date with eng samples from intel, amd and nvidia) and I've got an XBox and PS3, i play games on all of them (probably the ps3 not as much mainly because i prefer the xbox controller) and I don't see any reason why I would abandon the consoles to play on the PC exclusively even though it is a pretty decent PC. They all have their place.

I don't have a Wii because I'm not much into those sorts of games - I have a Kinect and I'm not really a fan of tha

I've got a PC (which, thanks to my job is kept pretty up to date with eng samples from intel, amd and nvidia) and I've got an XBox and PS3, i play games on all of them (probably the ps3 not as much mainly because i prefer the xbox controller) and I don't see any reason why I would abandon the consoles to play on the PC exclusively even though it is a pretty decent PC. They all have their place.

The problem you have is that you are not the average console player.

Consoles are primarily played by casual players. The Wii outsold the Xbox and Playstation 2:1 until they both dropped their prices to cater for the casual market. The average console player plays Mario Kart, Wii Sports, Rock Band and the like. The top selling game on the Xbox 360 is Kinect Adventures, Gran Turismo on the PS3 which is really an arcade game.Without the casual market, consoles cant compete against PC's which are more profit

And the best selling game for the PC? The Sims 2! The second best selling game for the PC? The Sims! Not something I would consider to be 'hardcore' gaming titles. The PC looks a lot more casual gaming than consoles, certainly don't see anything to suggest consoles are more casual-gaming focussed.

It used to be though to get the reasonably specced PC you had to spend $800 - 1000. When the PS3 / X360 and before their release that was true. $300 (or whatever it was) for a sound card just to place Wing Commander 2 with voice pack..... ah the memories

I'm a PS3 owner because of the Blu-Ray player, and I'm a fan of a few Sony exclusive game franchises.

I think most people buy platform X or Y not on technical merits but on system-exclusive games. If the next-gen don't have any system exclusives that are wor

The console-killer always has been the good old PC. A reasonably specced-out PC with a mid-range graphics card is far, far better than any console. But nobody listens to me. Nobody loves me.

The console killer was the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, etc. Apple sells as many iDevices each year than all the consoles that have ever been made, and has more games available in the App Store for its platform than for all consoles that have ever existed combined. They just announced their 40 billionth unique (non-upgrade, non-redownload) app sale, most of them games. Consoles and PC game rigs are both niches now.

I don't get the passion on this topic. Play what you want, on what you want. I don't see myself getting a new console for a long time, since there is no point. I already own a PC with decent hardware, and most of the games I like, or genres I like are also on the PC as well as on consoles. I'm also not young anymore, so there aren't any games I need to own anymore (perhaps thats just because Squar...Squenix sucks now), so consoles aren't as seductive.

Mommy may want to buy some shitty Ouya console cause its cheap, but little Jimmy won't want to play this shitty half assed games on it.

Seriously, do you think people WANT to phone quality graphics on a 60" TV? No, they don't even want to see it on a 15" laptop.

Anyone who thinks streamed games have chance hasn't played a game. Even for turn based games, lag that is noticeable sucks ass, and no ones internet is lag free all the time. Even if the last mile doesnt' lag, there are plenty of other hops to cause problems and introduce lag.

Consoles, current or next gen, have no worries at all about being beat out by a Gamestick or Ouya console, local or streamed. Anyone who thinks this is utterly disconnected from reality.

OP is correct. A good hard dose of truth! Though, personally, I think the Ouya has a chance of giving the casual low-fi game sector (where Nintendo is currently king) a big shake up. Just don't pretend that it is even close to a solution for serious gaming. Maybe in 3+ years when mobile graphics are stepped up a couple of notches.

When you stream a game, it doesn't have to mean that you're streaming what's on the screen directly. In a game engine, there may well be content that's expensive to calculate, but has very relaxed latency requirements and can be essentially treated as pre-caching of sorts. What you do is look at the client and look for where it ails, and basically offload stuff that may be precomputed a bit in advance. For low-latency GUI, you still have a low-end GPU, b

The "winner" of at least the last three console wars was the cheapest console.

The Wii outsold the Xbox 360 and the PS3. At some points it was outselling them *combined*, until Microsoft and Sony dropped their prices.

The PS2 outsold the Gamecube, Xbox and Dreamcast, which is generally credited to a) it being a cheaper DVD player than many dedicated DVD players, b) massive third-party support, itself caused by c) its low price.

The PS1 outsold the N64 and Saturn. Even though the N64 was slightly cheaper, it was also two years late, and had lower TCO since the games were CD-based, not cartridge-based. And don't even bring up the 3DO.

Ouya, Gamestick, Piston, Shield, and all the other microconsoles... I'm not worried that the graphics will hold them back (well, maybe Gamestick). The thing that's more likely to keep them from succeeding is a small game library. Ouya is close enough to many common Android tablets that it should be fine. Shield seems almost like a fancy demo for Nvidia's new hardware, so I doubt they'd panic if it flops. Piston (and the other Steamboxen) have one publisher behind them, which is at least enough to survive in the marketplace (ain't that right, Nintendo?).

The "winner" of at least the last three console wars was the cheapest console.

The Wii outsold the Xbox 360 and the PS3. At some points it was outselling them *combined*, until Microsoft and Sony dropped their prices.

This is exactly what I mean. The console market relies on the casual gamer for profitability. Not that there's anything wrong with casual gaming.

Of the last console generation I owned a PS2 and a Xbox360, I owned one game on each before the PS2 became a glorified DVD player (which is sucked at) but the Xbox fared better, chipped and running XBMC it served as a media centre until 2010, nether were useful gaming machines as any games released on them that I wanted to play came out on the PC anyway. This g

Wait a minute. You say the winner of the last three console wars was the cheapest, and then admit that the PS1 wasn't the cheapest, the PS2 wasn't the cheapest, and the Gamecube won because it sold the most, even though there were no games for it and people who are into games have basically ignored it for the last four years?

Why even make a point, which you yourself immediately contradict with facts?

Easily. The better ones already have controller support. I've hooked up a PS3 controller to my android tablet. All you need is Bluetooth or USB.
Also there is DosBox + Bluetooth mouse for your Master of Magic and Dungeon Keeper needs.
And with the newly announced SoC you can have independent display on your tablet and your HDMI connected viewing screen. Which sounds awefully like that new Nintendo thing.
All the standard stuff has already been there for some time.
Fun fact: I even give presentations with m

Price too. If I want an OUYA Console, it'll cost me $NZ215. I can just walk down the my local store and pick up an xbox 360 for $248, a wii for $268 or a PS3 for $349.

They're all in the same price bracket, apart from the PS3 being a little high and the OUYA not existing yet and has only shipped dev kits. GameStick also doesn't exist. None of them have any compatible games either as the entire catalog of Android games require a touch screen.

I'm tired of reading bullshit articles day after day from idiot bloggers. What makes systems like xbox and ps3 so powerful isn't necessarily their hardware specs but their dedication. Anything with stock android isn't good for jackshit, and will force you to buy better and better hardware just to make it go faster, a problem the ps3 and xbox gaming consoles excel at.

They're seven year old hardware, where the games ultimately look about the same [youtube.com] (if not as good) as with a modern PC. While of course the PC would win the Pepsi challenge, it's a hell of a lot smaller difference than (say) PS2 v. PS1.

They're seven year old hardware, where the games ultimately look about the same [youtube.com] (if not as good) as with a modern PC. While of course the PC would win the Pepsi challenge, it's a hell of a lot smaller difference than (say) PS2 v. PS1.

I'm a game developer. It takes far less time and effort to make a cross platform game with features coded & content authored to the lowest common denominator -- or average common denominator then slightly improve or dumb down features / fidelity (except for textures, those are pretty easy because resampling can be automated). The PC has FAR more memory than the 360 or PS3, yet those Witcher2 models had the EXACT same vertices and animations; It's really noticeable in the hair. So, the only real diff

Even with a cloud network that comes equipped with millions of graphics cards, I just don't see how they are going to get around the bandwidth bottleneck. Unless the only games being offered are board games, I just don't see how anything like an FPS being played via cloud computing due to obvious things like:
1. bandwidth needed to download the images to update the gamer's display
2. network latency causing input delays
Even with great compression algorithms, you're still looking at a problem of somehow refreshing the display at a minimum of 30 fps. I cannot help but speculate you would need either large bandwidth with low latency or special hardware to uncompress the image stream.
But the most important question is, what the hell happens when either the cloud is down, or when you lose your internet connection?

MMORPGs are "cloud gaming" in that the game is hosted online elsewhere. Seems to work for the most popular game ever.

And it always amuses me how so many on slashdot are narrow-minded Luddites. "If I can't think of a solution, then it's impossible." A flash game takes less data than the image that results from it. It isn't hard to stream data to render, then render it in a simple manner. You have to have a video card of some type, and so far, most run android games, rather than "cloud" games. None of

MMORPGs are "cloud gaming" in that the game is hosted online elsewhere. Seems to work for the most popular game ever.

Only the game-logic is running on the server, and even then not all of it actually is; the reason why so many wall-hacks and such work so well is exactly because the logic for those runs on the client. The graphics itself is NOT streamed, so your comparison is utterly silly.

It isn't hard to stream data to render, then render it in a simple manner. You have to have a video card of some type, and so far, most run android games, rather than "cloud" games. None of the current (or near future ones) run remotely. They all run on local hardware, so I'm not sure why so many put the "must run remotely" requirement on it, then misrepresent what that would take, so not only are they arguing something that isn't true, they are doing so with very flawed arguments. Why not just say "I irrationally hate change." That way people wouldn't waste time actually trying to inform the irrational Luddites.

Uh, the article itself literally talks about it, not Slashdotters. The article suggests that games -- including all their rendering -- happens on the server and the end-result is being streamed, so yes, "must run remotely" becomes a hard

The graphics itself is NOT streamed, so your comparison is utterly silly.

What current or proposed gaming device streams graphics from the cloud?

Uh, the article itself literally talks about it, not Slashdotters. The article suggests that games -- including all their rendering -- happens on the server and the end-result is being streamed, so yes, "must run remotely" becomes a hard requirement. Alas, your comparison to MMORPGs already showed you have no idea what you're talking about.

I read the article, and I didn't get from it what you assert it says.

It mentioned streaming games from a PC (not the cloud) and it mentioned Android games (none of which are currently or proposed to stream graphics over the cloud). So yes, please point out where in the 3 links it mentions a console or game that streams remotely generated graphics from the cloud (not a PC with hints about future "cloud" capabilities). I don't see what

I'm looking forward with tremendous anticipation to new products from Sony and Msft. I will be on the edge of my seat watching those two paragons of evil beat each other to a pulp again and lose more $billions. A Tweedledee vs Tweedledum extreme mud wrestling cage fight. And I need to see if they can manage to burn a few houses down between them this time, especially since Microsoft got oh so close last time.

This 'cloud gaming' stuff seems severely overrated; but there might be another way in which cheapie consoles do cause real trouble for their more expensive brethren:

Because(with the historical exception of Nintendo) consoles have been sold at a loss(and have also generally been somewhat odd ducks, with a fair amount of custom architecture thrown in), with the economic logic being built around massive volume sales of officially blessed games that pay a tithe for the privilege, the present sales model is only

When will people understand that there is no console killer. Just like TV didnt kill radio. Computers and consoles didnt kill TV. Consoles didnt kill PC's. Consoles are good at what they do and fill that niche market. Nevermind that the devices mentioned are consoles themselves. If Ouya can produce quality blockbuster titles then it will do well, if not, it will most likely go the way of the Jaguar, 3DO, Virtua Boy and other failed consoles. If not then it will fill its own niche market but never truly comp

Sure, cloud gaming can work. Despite what people may say, OnLive works, and some people have a good time playing on it, but those people are knowingly making a sacrifice to play their game on OnLive. Cloud gaming will be fine, but even the tiniest lag is a step backwards. It's adding one more thing on top of all the other things that cause lag, and cause a game to feel bad.

Call of Duty has some of the fastest response times for any game -- that means when you pull the trigger, it feels like you instantly

Dear God, this is the worst version (or a contender for it) of how things are supposed to work with the internet.

It seriously ranks up there with people who repeatedly stream the same YouTube clip or NetFlix movie over and over again. You're supposed to download things locally, then use them; not stream / tether them to a server. Why? Because it's the equivalent of driving your car to the super market to buy a single can of coke, driving back home, drinking it, then driving back to the store again...and so

This will fail just like every other cheap android console solution. These people don't get console gaming. They assume consoles are just cheap PCs so therefore making the cheapest POS equates to a win and it won't.

And for quality content, you do not need a giant octo-core monster with a dedicated GPU that will burn through the PCB without a proper heatsink and fan. You need power to produce another shitty cookie cutter game running off UDK, hence the reason for the Xbox 360 and PS3.

I played plenty of games in 1997-2004 that were astoundingly awesome (and still are today via emulation). For those kinds of games, even the OUYA is drastically overpowered because it runs Android and they didn't feel like writing their own OS. Seriously, if someone started from the ground up and built their own console with their own OS and their own SDK, you could pull off some impressive things with a 500mhz processor and 256MB of RAM. If you think that's bullshit, then you need only look into the history of gaming to say otherwise.

So, yeah, I suppose what qualifies as a "tiny" console today could give the 360 and PS3 a decent kicking if they got enough talented developers on board who actually had an interest in making solid games (and game engines) rather then barfing up some more crap in UDK or Unity.

While I would hardly disagree with the notion that today's gaming market is loaded with derivative crap(not that the past wasn't: how many crap re-sprites of Mario Brothers did the world get to endure?); your proposed solution seems counterintuitive:

Derivative crap comes about for some combination of 1. Customer demand, 2. Publisher risk aversion, 3. Tight deadlines, and 4. Very high development costs that essentially require a game to be a big seller lest it be a massive money pit.

Game consoles came out nearly simultaneously as PCs did. Game consoles meant you can have an arcade like experience at home. In fact, the Altair 8800 came out 3 years after the first console, the Magnavox Odyssey.

Game consoles were meant to play *games* and facilitate that goal, not be general purpose computers that are devilishly locking you out.